What if Monsignor Lynn is right?
In his trial on charges of criminally endangering children, Monsignor William Lynn portrayed himself as a man of conscience who quietly tried to help victims despite the indifference of his superiors.
Maryclaire Dale of The Associated Press summarized his defense this way:
A Roman Catholic church official is being unfairly prosecuted for the sins of the church and the rogue conduct of predator-priests, a defense lawyer said Thursday as he asked jurors in a groundbreaking trial to acquit his client.
“You have witnessed evil in this courtroom. You have seen the dark side of the church. You’ve seen grown men come into this courtroom and weep because they were abused,” said lawyer Thomas Bergstrom. “And now, the sins of all these fathers that he laid bare – that he laid bare – are now laid at his feet.”
Lynn maintained that the prosecutors’ prized exhibit – a secret list of 35 suspected pedophile priests – was actually evidence of his innocence. He said he drew the list up to call attention to the problem; Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua ordered it destroyed. (A copy survived.) No wonder the jurors, who resume deliberation in Philadelphia on Monday, asked for it right away.
Many scoff at this defense. But my experience in covering scores of trials is that, regardless of the verdict, the truth of what happened usually falls someplace between the prosecution and defense versions. And so, what if Monsignor Lynn is right?
What if he made a sincere effort, within the confines of obedience to the cardinal, to address the problem of clergy sexual abuse? What if he decided that, rather than speak out, it would be better for children if he worked within the system?
The rejoinder is that if Monsignor Lynn really believed he was surrounded by evil, he had a duty to speak out about it. Should he not have cooperated with the police and the families of victims instead of lying to them, as the prosecutor charged?
But suppose Lynn’s defense raises the reasonable doubt that leads to his acquittal? If Monsignor Lynn is right, it means that obedience is so enshrined in the culture of the church – or at least it was in this archdiocese – that a decent man could not reasonably be expected to do the decent thing.
No verdict is needed to see that both the prosecution and defense versions of the facts offer a sorry picture of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia – which had responded in 2005 to a critical grand jury report by calling it “anti-Catholic” and “a vile, mean-spirited diatribe.” It called the portrayal of Cardinal Bevilacqua “cruel and undeserved” and “vicious.”
But when he testified, Monsignor Lynn specifically held the late cardinal responsible for the actions he is accused of:
Lynn said it was Bevilacqua, not [Monsignor James] Molloy, as prosecutors had suggested, who instructed him in a 1991 note never to tell a priest’s accuser if others have come forward with complaints.
Lynn also testified that Bevilacqua directed that any notices about an accused priest’s removal or transfer from a parish should say only that they were on “health leave” – not that they had been accused of abuse.
Obedience has always been a part of religious life, but it shouldn’t be absolute. It shouldn’t require a priest to lie to parishioners or to victims of sexual crimes.
If Monsignor Lynn believed obedience required this, it is further evidence that the system is badly in need of reform. Church whistleblowers need to be protected against ecclesiastical retaliation, and the exaltation of obedience one hears so often in official church discourse needs to be qualified.
Francis of Assisi understood this. Although he emphasized obedience to church authority, he also saw its limits and allowed for dissent against the minister-general of his order. In his Rule of 1221, he instructed: “A friar is not bound to obey if a minister commands anything that is contrary to our life or his own conscience, because there can be no obligation to obey if it means committing sin.”
If the Cardinal would have ordered Lynn to go out and rob a bank, would Lynn have obeyed him and robbed the bank?
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511
“Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests” and all clergy.
For someone of a certain age (like me, I’m afraid) this calls to mind the war crimes trials after 1945, when some collaborators (Pierre Laval in France and Jose Laurel in the Philippines come to mind) claimed that their working with the Germans or the Japanese was actually undertaken in an attempt to mitigate the rigors and cruelty of occupation for the benefit of their oppressed fellow citizens. Yet the parallel of course is inexact, since a refusal to collaborate with with Bevilacqua and others of that sort would not, presumably, have led to imprisonment or a firing squad.
Lynn’s testimony seems to feed a growing sense that in a clerical culture there is a startling difference between the “Catholic” obligation of obedience to one’s superiors, and the Christian obligation to seek to prevent evil, especially evil done to the weak and vulnerable (like children). If Lynn was convinced that Bevilacqua was doing evil, he should gone to the police, gone to the press, taken what ever steps were necessary to put a stop to it, even at the cost of his career. Would the Catholic virtue of obedience to one’s hierarchical superior have stopped his tongue if we were talking about murder or theft?
If it is true (I don’t know that it is, but there are those who think so) that Joseph Ratzinger had the goods on Maciel and the Legionaries while he was still at the CDF, should he not also have refused to obey John Paul II’s command to him to remain silent? Did “Catholic” obligation also trump Christian obligation then?
St. Francis obviously understood the difference (see above). Why can’t we? Let’s not fall back on the silly statement that “the Church is not a democracy.” The problem here is not a lack of democracy but a lack of accountability in any sense save upwards towards one’s hierarchical superiors.
The Church clearly seems to need some help in solving that problem. What can we do to assist it?
Lynn also served under Cardinal Rigali for seven years, as priest personnel chief and as a top pastor.? Will Rigali get a free pass? Are only dead Cardinals eligible to be blamed?
For info on “counter rallies” next Friday, June 8, to support victims of priest abuse, women and American Sisters and gay persons, in Philly and in 132 other US cities to add alternative voices to, and at the same time and place, the bishops’ anti-HHS contraceptive insurance regulations rallies , please read “Nationwide Catholic “Counter” Rallies Next Friday, Noon, For Abused Children, Women, Sistersn& Gay Persons”, accessible by clicking on at:
http://www.bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2012/06/nationwide-catholic-counter-rallies.html
Msgr. Lynne testified that he compiled the list of wayward priests for his superiors after fielding a complaint about misconduct by another parish priest, the Rev. James M. Dux. Msgr.
He said, “I was concerned that there could be others like him, so I wanted to go through the files.”
The prosecutors contend that he developed the list to protect the diocese from lawsuits.
He said that he delivered the list to Cardinal Bevilacqua and his top aides, Bishop Edward M. Cullen, Msgr. James E. Molloy and the Rev. Joseph Cistone, and never saw it again. Apparently, Bevilacqua had it shredded. (A copy of the list was mysteriously discovered in a safe in the archdiocese’s Center City offices in 2006 and turned over only this year.)
Cardinal Bevilacqua and Msgr. James E. Molloy are dead, but Bishop Edward M. Cullen, and the Rev. Joseph Cistone (now bishop in Saginaww MI) are alive and well. Why are they not held accountable?
The crimes comitted against children were herendous.
The first SNAP question is germane.
Helen’s questions are germane.
I think all the”insiders” including the deceased Cardinal ,his successor, and the other cast who dealt with this including Lynne ae cuplable of not standing up for what is clearly right – forget the”obedience” defence.
Mabe it wil carry weightin the now sitting jury room, but that doesn’t make it orMsgr. Lynne right!
Paul,
Thanks for raising this. The frenzied rush to judgement like Judy Jones’ comments by the use of outlandish comparisons offers little light or wisdom in a case fraught with so many emotions and so many victims.
I guess that’s why we have a jury system which is based on the conviction that people are presumed innocent, even priests accused of pedophilia and their superiors too.
AA
I’ve followed media reports about the case in Philadelphia involving Monsignor Lynn.
But I don’t know certain things that I’d like to know about the list that he compiled.
Because he was working from files, I assume that some of the priests that he listed had been repeat offenders. But is this correct? And how many one-time offenders did Lynn include in his list? And how many repeat offenders?
How much information did the files contain regarding the allegations made against each priest? Did the parents or legal guardians of the alleged victims write out their allegations, and if they did, did their written statements make it into the files that Lynn was working with?
Or did pastors or other priests write up reports of allegations made against certain priests, which reports made it into the files that Lynn was working with?
From reading whatever information the files contained, just how clear was it to Lynn in each case how credible the allegations were?
Through these questions, I want to raise the possibility that Lynn’s obedience may have been tempered from his own awareness of just how limited his estimates of the priests he listed were. His estimates of them were limited because all he did was read files.
He did not interview each priest about the allegations in the files, did he?
Did he interview all of the alleged victims regarding their allegations?
Monsignor Lynn may have been understandably circumspect about his estimates of the priests he listed. If this were the case, then his obedience may have been understandable under the circumstances.
Were these points covered in the trial? I don’t know if they were.
In any event, it is now up to the jury to reach a decision based on whatever came out during the trial. I look forward to learning what the jury decides.
Monsignor Lynn is right about WHAT??????? This notion is beyond goofy.
What would have it be like today for survivors and the Philadelphia church if Lynn would have loudly and publicly resigned the first time Bevilacqua ignored or circumvented his recommendations to suspend a perpetrator priest?
Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to say nothing.”
Lynn should be expected to know more than most people that “Christianity is not for sissies.” Lynn lost his Christian courage and now stands complicit in the serial rape and sodomy of children.
The 1994 list, compiled by Msgr. William J. Lynn, comprised 35 then-active priests who had been either convicted or accused of sexual abuse of minors. He claims to have compiled this list on his own and presented it to his higher ups.
Not to excuse Msgr .Lynne but the sad and true part of the story is that Bevilacqua was a BULLY, plain and simple.
Monsignor Lynn is right about WHAT???????
————
That’s what I’m wondering, too. If he is “right”, then the grand jury was wrong.
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf
Daily, judgments are made by me and, I assume, most others about individuals as to whether to trust and depend on them. Most such judgments are in trivial or minor matters, some are serious, and a few are vital. Juries aren’t involved. Various criteria for judgment apply, but the absence of a criminal conviction by a jury is hardly a noteworthy, praiseworthy discriminant in the process.
We have heard about Lynn from Grand Jury reports and his own testimony under oath. Assume for simplicity no mental reservations in play. Based on what is publicly sworn to, would you ever hire Lynn for any kind of responsibility involving people who might be physically, mentally, or emotionally vulnerable to mistreatment? As a baby-sitter, personnel manager, therapist, vocational advisor,…..? First pray that he has changed his values, standards, and enculturation? … right about WHAT???????
” — obedience is so enshrined in the culture of the church – or at least it was in this archdiocese – that a decent man could not reasonably be expected to do the decent thing.”
So “I was only following orders” is a reasonable excuse NOT to do the decent thing for a “decent man?”
What kind of culture demands of a priest the extent of obedience to his bishop to the point where common sense, decency and personal and moral integrity do not override that oath of obedience?
Is the Catholic clericalist culture so pernicious that an erstwhile decent man would feel that he has no choice than to be quiet and obedient?
If it is, it is infinitely more rotten that I had thought it to be.
Good question, Mr. Moses. Not sure how a jury may decide (emotions, identification with Lynn, etc. – who knows).
But, beyond that, your question leaves us with some serious implications. CARA just released a sizable study of priests and their attitudes towards sex abusers, bishops, and the current process. Again, the results indicate that priests are very demoralized because of the Dallas Chapter and the lack of episcopal accountability. Yet, with a few exceptions, priests have basically lived (very much like Lynn) in silence; doing their pastoral work; but remaining passive in the face of episcopal misbehavior.
If Lynn is found not guilty, would suggest that this will only reinforce these behaviors and, even more so, you will see what I think you suggest between the lines – this picture of “obedience” (follow orders; use mental reservation; make excuses for your passivity) becomes the definition of catholic faith …… WHEN, catholic faith really has little connection to “following orders”; this type of definition or lifestyle of “obedience”. In reality, it turns our pilgrim faith upside down and makes a god out of a poorly lived and defined virtue, obedience. Is that what we really want to see?
Most people who quote the Philly grand jury report don’t know that the report was actually written by the prosecution! (Ass’t DA Mariana Sorensen)
In fact, there is a LOT about this case that would surprise people. You just won’t read about it in the media.
http://www.themediareport.com/2012/05/30/philadelphia-catholic-abuse-trial-what-the-media-is-missing/
-
That others were more guilty doesn’t make a person less guilty. Indeed, that is often what it means to take the fall for others: not that one was not guilty, but that one was willing to be made the only accountable party.
“What if he made a sincere effort, within the confines of obedience to the cardinal . . . [?]” he can still be guilty. What if I make a sincere effort to persuade my co-conspirators to cease and desist but stay silent as they go forward and rob a bank or whatever? Am I less responsible for the contributions that I did make to the conspiracy because I showed doubt or a guilty conscience (or tried to lay the groundwork for my defense in advance — one can become very cynical in these situations)?
It is crass and insensitve to bet on this, but I’d put money more on his being acquitted. Is that justice? No. But it’s easier to point the blame at the dead cardinal than send him to jail. The juros are horrifed perhaps, but I think they’ll buy the “following orders–not my decision” defense. But where are we then?
I’ve followed the Philadelphia Inquirer’s daily reports of the trial. They are, of course, limited, but Msgr. Lynn doesn’t seem to have had any second thoughts about his behavior, no wrestling with his conscience that perhaps it would have been better for the children to have the police handle the cases. He could, after all, have turned in his list of credibly accused priests to the police. Or he could even have informed on at least the worst of them anonymously and let the police start a general investigation. His behavior was not totally passive (he did prepare the list and get some of the men to therapy), but generally he strikes me as, well, just infantile. Daddy says do it this way, so, good little boy that I am, I do it this way.
As I’ve said before, I have a certain sympathy for him because he’s obviously the fall guy, but that too is infantile. The facts remain — he did not report the accused to the police.
From what I’ve read, this might not be the last of the inditements.
The jurors will have to consider the exact charge against Monsignor Lynn and the judge’s instructions about what they are supposed to being judging.
Do the jurors consider Lynn to be guilty as charged, beyond a reasonable doubt?
In other words, in the jurors’ estimate, did the prosecution succeed in showing that beyond a reasonable doubt Lynn is guilty as charged?
Or, in the jurors’ estimate, did the prosecution fail to show that beyond a reasonable doubt that Lynn is guilty as charged?
The role of the defense was to plant doubt in the jurors’ mind by suggesting ways in which the situation can be viewed that mitigate against the exact charge made against Lynn.
It appears that the now deceased cardinal was the real culprit.
In any event, the jury now has to reach a decision regarding Lynn and the charge against him. I look forward to learning the jury’s verdict.
I want to ask a question. Or maybe more than one question.
As we know, there is a trial going on in the Kansas City, Missouri, area at the present time. The Catholic diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph encompasses more than one county in the State of Missouri. Now, the county prosecutor in one county has filed charges against the diocese. The county prosecutor has also filed charges against Bishop Finn.
But here’s my question: If the county prosecutor can file charges against the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese, could the prosecutor in Philadelphia file charges against the diocese?
I know, I know, Philadelphia is in the State of Pennsylvania.
So is there some kind of provision in state law in Missouri that allows the county prosecutors there to file charges against the diocese but some kind of provision in state law in Pennsylvania that prevents the diocese of Philadelphia from being charged?
Or is it still an option for the prosecutor in Philadelphia to bring charges against the diocese?
Thomas Farrell: There can be more than one real culprit. There can be multiple culprits with greater and lesser degrees of culpability. That the ring leader got off (died before he could be arrested) is not a rational basis for letting everyone else off.
Barbara: Yes, the trial in Philadelphia is about Monsignor Lynn’s culpability. It remains to be seen if the jury will find him guilty as charged, or not.
The jury may find him guilty as charged.
Or the jury may find him not guilty as charged.
Or the jury might deadlock and not reach a verdict.
I want to ask Paul Moses a question, but it needs some explanation.
Most criminal cases -vast majority -are settled by pleas.
Since the explosion of criminal cases with broad drug issues, the power of”moving the calendar” has made this inevetable and it shall be for some time at leat. It’s OK’d as “rough justice”
Trials are nor only rare then, but “high profile trials” even more so.
From personal experience i can tell you from my own jury and other professional experience that trials limit what you can know (admissibility and fairness procedure) but high profile cases have often powerful influences within and trying to influence outcomes with high profile lwayers involved.
I’d suggest this is a kind of “rough justice” too,
I wonder then ,Paul, if it’s the proper frame in this case to ask if Lynn was”right?”
We’ve had Kaylee Anthony and John edwards earlier this year.
Sandusky and Zimmerm,an coming up et al.
Finn?
I think our imperfect justice sytem gives us imperfect justice but it;s what we’ve got and it’s a lot better than other places.
I thought the defenses reference to “12 Angry Men” was to a simpler time when jury selction was alot less sophisticated(unbaised) and maybe we could dredge up the famous speech at the end of”Caine mutiny” on loyalty in the chain.
But I think the real question of right comes down to basic values – something I think continues to flag in our Church today as it tries to hang on to power.
This situation brings to mind an article from 9 years ago, notably not from the Boston Globe but from the diocesan paper The Pilot, on the Massachusetts Attorney General presenting his report. It recalls the names of Daily, Banks, Hughes, Murphy, and McCormack which went on thereafter with Church honor. Then, no court trials occurred, but AG Reilly’s pungent quasi-indictment looks as if it could be duplicated today for Philadelphia, however the Lynn verdict comes out.
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=1212
I can’t remember where the long profile of Lynn was, maybe the NYT Magazine a couple of years ago.
The article portrayed him as a dullard. Weak, clueless, passive, no character, no personality, etc., etc. A man who would have had a hard time finding any job in the real world, but who, maybe because of his challenges, was just what was wanted/needed in the responsible positions to which he was promoted.
Those who blame the victims, the victims’ advocates, his superiors, his underlings, et al., may have a point. Perhaps his lawyers should have presented expert testimony about his out-to-lunchness.
(Acedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acedia )
Gerelyn –
Interesting Acedia site. One doesn’t think of priests as having existential problems, but maybe the new study on the priests’ relationships with their bishops needs consideration of that possibility.
Can groups of people suffer acidie? Seems so to me. I think the idea itself needs analysis and clarification, but there does seem to be a lot there. The idea has lasted too long and been applied in too many different places to be dismissed as folk psych.
Unbeknownst to me when I last posted, RCM’sa movies tonigh tare 12Angry <Men and the Caine mutiny.
Wonder if any jurors are TCM fans?
Bob Nunz:
I have shown that film to high school students for many years. Thank you for the post about TCM, I am watching as I am writing.
Could the Pope be trying to sway the jury in the midst of its deliberations by announcing that he has chosen Philadelphia for the Catholic Church’s next World Meeting of Families? Abp. Chaput promptly announced that the city lacks the resources to do it as it has been done elsewhere in the past. ?
Philadelphia to host much smaller family gathering, archbishop says
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202305.htm
Re: Meeting of Families to be held in Philadelphia in 2015
Perhaps Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, will come to the financial rescue.
I was bemused by the timing of the Philly visit announcement.
Surely a coincidence?
Will it bring healing and reconciliation to that awful mess there?
But as the Lynn matter is weiged in a (probably) small room, experienc etells me there wil be pressure to discus, bu talso to finish, to folow the law but also to do some kind of justice.
How it will work out depends on theose folks’ dymanics.
But it won’t answer ifLynn was right.
To moderators,
Sorry to double post. I initially thought I was responding to this article…not the one about the Sr. Farley…although it is related :). So, I am resposting.
It has become increasingly obvious to me in recent years that obedience is for the RCC and the right-leaning catholics is the first order of faith. “Hear Oh Israel, there is one pope, he is infallible…You shall love the magisterium with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your strength” has replaced the Shema and “We believe in one supremem pontiff…and in all the bishops he appoints…” is more important than the creed. The Gospels means whatever the Vatican says it means on any given Tuesday. This of course is nothing new. That has been the faith for centuries. It is now quite clear to me. I can’t believe that I convinced myself otherwise. Anyway, the sex scandal has shown us the fruit of that creed. I hope this will compel catholics to ask serious questions like, what does it mean to be a follower of Christ and is there some basis for seeking truth other than authority? Books by catholics conservatives called “by what authority?” have all told us that the way to know truth is to have it told to you by the magisterium. Everyone with a basic familiarity with logic knows that argument on the basis of authority is the weakest kind.
But authoritarianism has long been a defining feature of the Church. If there was a window after Vatican II when it looked that was going to change, that was actually an aberration. It is now back to business as usual–scandals, political intrigues, and an opaque justice system rule the day.
For all my criticism of the Catholic right, I wouldnot describe myself as the Catholic left. This is not a right left issue. For me, it’s how much intellectual and moral suicide can I commit? So, I am out but for those of you committed to staying, if no where else can be home, I beg you to do something for God’s name is blasphemed among the nations as a result of this scandalous institution.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
Ok, I’m sure this will upset many but its an honest question. Where were these kids parents and why didn’t they call the civil authorities? It seems to me its first and foremost their responsibility as the victims parents to report, and secondarily the perpetrator’s supervisors responsibility. What am I missing?
Duty to reportt by people in authority in the know.
Ask Sandusky parents while you’re at it or other parents elsewhere who’ve had kids abused by priests and gone to Church authorititiues with trust!
Bruce –
In some cases no doubt the parents were unwilling to go to the police because they judged it would be worse for their children to have to relive the experience by telling about it in detail. Apparently for the children there were two factors in the abuse — the abuse itself and who the abusers were, the formerly trusted priests.
Some parents complained to the bishop and were turned away. If the bishops had gone to the police that could have been a healing factor for the child — one Fr. had abused them, but another Fr. tried to help by going to the police. But the chanceries often refused to take the children seriously, so why would those parents expect the police to take them seriously?
Maybe some parents should have contacted the police, but I doubt there were many.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a good editorial on the Philadelphia matter, the problem of cover-ups both in the Church and outside it, and statutes of limitation.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20120416_Abuse_trial_testimony_cries_for_reform.html
When you raise SOL legislation, the halls iof the Catholic hierachy and elswhere gear up for battle – but we’ve been over that before.
In the meantime, they’ll tell you how good they are and have been – see Cardiunal Dolan on the “wonderful job Egan did in NY.”)
Has there been a verdict yet? What’s going on with this story?
Jim P. ==
The jury is deliberating. They’re asking a lot of questions mainly about basic definitions, e.g., “endanger”. Looks like a very responsible group that wants to follow the law carefully.
After a lengthy trial, there may well be lengthy deliberation -especially if the jury is not sequestered.
There is competing Philadelphia news. ZENIT – THE WORLD SEEN FROM ROME reports on June 4 about the Archdiocese of Philadelphia giving a special award to the Missionaries of Charity who run missions in Norristown and Chester. A bit unusual amidst Zenit’s typical coverage of diocesan news.
http://www.zenit.org/article-34905?l=english
And yet more Philly news: David G reports that the Holy Father will be coming to Philadelphia in 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/pope-benedicts-philadelphia-visit_n_1569475.html?ref=religion
The jury is still asking for definitions: “ephebophile”, “pedophile”, and, God bless them, “agree” in a conspiracy. They’ve also asked for a marker board and an easel.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120606_Priest_sex_abuse_jurors_ask__Whats_an_ephebophile_.html
Yay, Philadelphia jury!
The announcement from Abp. Chaput came as the jury was to start deliberations.
Incidental timing im the “smooth” Roman way?